436 replies to this topic

[2F-001]

In our own ways, so many of us are followers of the Pedants' Revolt ( Leader: Which Tyler ).

[Roger Clark]

I haven’t seen this film but I have enjoyed reading most of the comments on this thread. 
 

I don’t generally have a problem with errors of detail of the kind identified in recent posts. Such things are fun to point out but they rarely spoil my enjoyment. 
 

I do have a problem with films or novels based an actual events which misrepresent those events or the characters involved. Defenders always say that it’s a drama, not a documentary but that misses the point. Viewers or readers will come away with the impression that they have learned something of the events and characters but it is distorted at best. I know that some may be inspired to learn more but I suspect this applies to very few and, in any case, first impressions are very difficult to overturn. 
 

Historical novels and films are best avoided, though I would make an exception for the works of Hilary Mantel. 

[BRG]

There is some interesting comment germane to this matter of the Pedant's Revolt in the current 'Classic and Sports Car' magazine, where Martin Buckley is critical of the vehicular inaccuracies in the BBC TV series 'The Trial of Christine Keeler'.  He points out a number of issues with cars out of period, or the wrong car for a known public figure, and also references the Jeremy Thorpe TV film 'A Very English Scandal' where an overly modern Rover was used instead of the historically correct Humber.  He wonders whether these inaccuracies are because getting the cars right is deemed a low priority by the creative types making TV and films who are just simply not car people or are even actively anti-car .

 

I think he sums it up well when he write "It's not a life-or-death matter, but you do wonder what else the BBC* is lazily getting wrong"  Indeed, and that can be extended to all the errors and inaccuracies that have been highlighted in this thread - if they get x wrong, then can we be sure that y and z aren't wrong as well?

 

* or film makers also

[2F-001]

Indeed - a useful rule of thumb when quickly evaluating a new reference work (be it a book of something else) is to check how it treats the stuff you do already know about. If that is represented badly, can you trust the stuff you had hoped to learn about?

 

I don't lose sleep over "wrong cars" in films, but there does often seem to be films using the 'iconic' (apologies for that usage... but it's nearly appropriate here) state-of-the-art cars of the time; the ones folks think of as the flagship symbols of that age... But the automotive landscape would have largely been populated by rather tired, out-of-date looking mundanity from the previous twenty or so years! It's a visual shorthand for an era (for those who weren't there) rather than an accurate recreation of it. It strikes a discordant note with me, but I understand why it's done. 

[john aston]

Hmm - I too noticed the P5B when it should have been a P5 but  the far greater sin is populating  the streets with shiny newish models. As a kid , it wasn't unusual to see wheezing old Ford E93As and Austin Devons in the early to mid Sixties. And Buckley can talk - with some of his colleagues he is guilty of the amateur sociology pieces describing  the typical driver of cars in period . The research is not exactly forensic as it seems only to extend to having watched some grainy old black and white footage of deservedly forgotten TV series from the past. 

 

I can state with authority that the streets of Castleford and Pontefract in 1967 were not clogged by dolly birds in Cooper S's or Jason King lookaikes puffing a Rothmans as they drove their  white E-Types past the opencast mines and and coke works

[Mallory Dan]

I guess there have been far fewer 'ordinary' cars preserved for use in films/telly than the rarer more glamorous ones.

[Sterzo]

There might be money to be made from film companies by building up a fleet of old Vauxhall Wyverns, with visible remoulds, rust patches and Isopon.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think it depends. Background details that don't fundamentally change the film/show can be waved off. So whether the cars are true period in the Profumo Affair or the Crown or what have you doesn't really matter. If Ford vs Ferrari had 962s warming up in the background that'd be concerning...

[BRG]

I think it depends. Background details that don't fundamentally change the film/show can be waved off. So whether the cars are true period in the Profumo Affair or the Crown or what have you doesn't really matter. If Ford vs Ferrari had 962s warming up in the background that'd be concerning...

I agree, but we are then setting a scale of inaccuracy and effectively saying that it is OK up to THIS point, but beyond that is unacceptable.  When we are dealing with mutli-million £ or $ productions, surely we can expect them to make their best efforts?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think it's a priority thing. If you're making a car movie the cars better be as close as you can get them. If you're making a general set in this time period movie, the background detail is not critical. As long as you don't have Starbucks cups in medieval/fantasy shows and etc.

 

So, having Ken Miles not race at Le Mans WHEN HE DID is blasphemous. Having them drink a can of soda where the logo is from an update/change that didn't happen for another 18 months is an almost irrelevant detail. If they were drinking out of cans in an era where the only had bottles, that's something you need to fix. But it not really material to the show. 

 

Maybe another way to look at it is this, if you correct the error how much does the show change? If not much, leave it. If the movie GT40 doesn't have the right shaped air intake or something, oh well. If it's got paddle shifts refilm the scene...

[Cirrus]

One thing they did get right was the '66 Le Mans programme. The ones in the film looked exactly the same as the one I had at the time.

[PayasYouRace]

Indeed - a useful rule of thumb when quickly evaluating a new reference work (be it a book of something else) is to check how it treats the stuff you do already know about. If that is represented badly, can you trust the stuff you had hoped to learn about?

I don't lose sleep over "wrong cars" in films, but there does often seem to be films using the 'iconic' (apologies for that usage... but it's nearly appropriate here) state-of-the-art cars of the time; the ones folks think of as the flagship symbols of that age... But the automotive landscape would have largely been populated by rather tired, out-of-date looking mundanity from the previous twenty or so years! It's a visual shorthand for an era (for those who weren't there) rather than an accurate recreation of it. It strikes a discordant note with me, but I understand why it's done.

Your post has reminded of of a series I watch on Netflix which I doubt anyone on TNF watches: Sex Education.

It’s already got a strange setting in rural modern day England but with an American twist. We know it’s modern day because the kids’ smartphone usage is key to the plot. But every single car featured in the series is at least 20 years old and it just adds to the strange vibe of the series.

[BRG]

What is this 'Netflckers' of which you speak? 

[GreenMachine]

There might be money to be made from film companies by building up a fleet of old Vauxhall Wyverns, with visible remoulds, rust patches and Isopon.

 

My brother had some nice cars, admittedly not your average bangers, and he listed them with an agency that identified cars for film and TV, including advertising, I have some windscreen stuff with his NSX on the label.  I understand that marque car clubs are (were?) a good source. 

 

They paid well, and part of the agreement was they were returned as delivered - that is, they would 'make up' the cars with dirt, faux accident damage, etc but had to return them to the condition they found them.  It was nice little sideline, and as far as I am aware he never had a problem.

[Odseybod]

My brother had some nice cars, admittedly not your average bangers, and he listed them with an agency that identified cars for film and TV, including advertising, I have some windscreen stuff with his NSX on the label.  I understand that marque car clubs are (were?) a good source. 

 

They paid well, and part of the agreement was they were returned as delivered - that is, they would 'make up' the cars with dirt, faux accident damage, etc but had to return them to the condition they found them.  It was nice little sideline, and as far as I am aware he never had a problem.

I think he was lucky. I heard of an owner of (I think) a rather smart Morris Minor who was rather proud when a film production company approached him for the loan of it, barely accepted any payment as he was so honoured, and failed to ask for sight of the shooting script beforehand, so was rather surprised to discover it had been catapulted into a rather deep pond or dock.

 

"Well, s'only an old car, innit?"

 

Confirmation that the production company is insuring the vehicle while it's with them, and careful examination of the policy to make sure it actually covers film use, is strongly recommended, as well as a detailed description of what they intend to do with it and who will actually be driving it.

[GreenMachine]

At the risk of going too OT ...

 

My recollection is that the agency ensured those sort of considerations were met by the ultimate user, for him it was (again, IIRC) pretty hands-off.  While I can't remember the details, I have a clear recollection of him talking about things like insurance, drivers, usage etc.  He was pretty fly, and I doubt he cut a blank cheque in his life! 

[opplock]

My brother saw the film in New Zealand before Christmas. His advice was not to waste my money. His two main beefs were that the racing scenes resembled The Fast and the Furious and that Bruce, Denny and Chris had been airbrushed out of the story. The latter contributed to the film's short run in cinemas down there.  

[10kDA]

Just a heads-up to scratch the Realism Of Hardware itch, Movies TV Network is airing Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" tomorrow evening.

[10kDA]

My brother had some nice cars, admittedly not your average bangers, and he listed them with an agency that identified cars for film and TV, including advertising, I have some windscreen stuff with his NSX on the label.  I understand that marque car clubs are (were?) a good source. 

 

They paid well, and part of the agreement was they were returned as delivered - that is, they would 'make up' the cars with dirt, faux accident damage, etc but had to return them to the condition they found them.  It was nice little sideline, and as far as I am aware he never had a problem.

Hmmm... I would insist that the contract include "No high-heeled bikini (or otherwise clothed or unclothed) models are to stand on any component of the vehicle."

[Ross Stonefeld]

My brother saw the film in New Zealand before Christmas. His advice was not to waste my money. His two main beefs were that the racing scenes resembled The Fast and the Furious and that Bruce, Denny and Chris had been airbrushed out of the story. The latter contributed to the film's short run in cinemas down there.  

 

I think calling it Ford v Ferrari/Le Mans 66 was misleading. It's really the Ken Miles, or Miles/Shelby story. So that everyone else was minimised didn't bother me much. 

[MartLgn]

I think calling it Ford v Ferrari/Le Mans 66 was misleading. It's really the Ken Miles, or Miles/Shelby story. So that everyone else was minimised didn't bother me much. 

 

As we were leaving the cinema (having thoroughly enjoyed the film) I said to my better half how suprised and delighted I was that the writers chose Ken Miles to be the pivotal character in a film billed as a battle between racing royalty and corporate muscle.

[Bob Riebe]

I saw the movie; a friend paid 22 bucks to see it on Netflix when we could have gone to the local cheap theater and the three of us could have watched it for 10 bucks but I will not complain, but am darn glad I did not have to pay to see it.

The personal drama,though over 50 percent bs was fascinationg but when they showed the Ferarri factory and cars not made for at least another three years were in there, that annoyed me greatly.

I read some interviews with the gents who made the movie and they said the cars used were very accurate continued production and just as snarly to drive as the originals but they went from the first prototype straight to the Mk II.

The title of the movies was the biggest pile of BS but probably drew more ignorant yout than a more accurate title.

 

Shelby giving Ford the 2nd a ride was BS as Miles did that and Henry was impressed but did not cry, also Shelby is the one who screwed Miles out of the win, not Beebe.

Mediocre at best.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 10 February 2020 - 20:41.

[Myhinpaa]

There is a short documentary at motorsport.com about the film vs. what happened in real life.

 

https://www.motorspo...d-next/4682489/

 

Not sure how good or accurate it is as I just watched a few minutes, Tom Kristensen as a narrator might not have been the best choice either?

[404KF2]

Two Oscars, eh?  Not many racing movies have done that.

[Glengavel]

Two Oscars, eh?  Not many racing movies have done that.

 

I still can't believe Driven was overlooked all those years ago.

[D28]

Two Oscars, eh?  Not many racing movies have done that.

Grand Prix 1967, 3 Oscars for similar technical awards.

[Sterzo]

Grand Prix 1967, 3 Oscars for similar technical awards.

It was a travesty that Graham Hill didn't win Best Actor.

[D28]

It was a travesty that Graham Hill didn't win Best Actor.

He played to type too much for the critics approval.

Edited by D28, 11 February 2020 - 17:36.

[Giraffe]

He played to type too much for the critics approval.

Ham actor, he couldn't even impersonate himself.....

[Allan Lupton]

Two Oscars, eh?  Not many racing movies have done that.

Ah, but the awards are given to film people by film people, so can have no significance to the rest of us. . .
 

[404KF2]

I enjoyed it before and will after

[Ian G]

Ham actor, he couldn't even impersonate himself.....

 

Yeah,he certainly looked uncomfortable in the short grabs he was shown in.

Probably needed a bit of coaching to look normal and relaxed instead of on edge whilst waiting to mumble his few lines.

 

I spoke to him at Warwick Farm in 1968(69?) and was expecting a short shift but he was very pleasant,asked him why his Gold Leaf car was set up higher than Jim's and from what i could gather it was something to do with car feel thru the corners(if that makes sense).

Edited by Ian G, 13 February 2020 - 11:14.

[Tim Murray]

I spoke to him at Warwick Farm in 1968(69?) ...

If Jim was there it has to be 1968.

[Claudio Navonne]

It's not "Grand Prix."
In 1967, my late father (he died 5 months ago at the age of 91) was a car racing enthusiast who couldn't get his two sons, me 11 and my 7-year-old brother, interested in motor sports. But that year the film Grand Prix was released in Buenos Aires. So my father took the whole family, my mother and my sister too, to the cinema. Cinerama, stereo sound.
It's not "Grand Prix".
My mother and sister came out of the cinema saying they didn't understand anything about the races, but that the argument was good and so were the performances. My father, my brother and I talked for the first time about racing cars, and I think from that moment on the only thing that interested us was F1 (even though today it's boring), the cars and the drivers of those cars. The circuits, the technique, in short that film made us passionate about motorsport.
I don't know if this movie will make any car racing fanatic.
It's not "Grand Prix".
 54 years later, and despite all the advancement of technology, the race sequence of Monaco, or Spa in the Rain, or Zandvort with Jackie Stewart. They couldn't be matched. I know that F3 cars were used, and that there was an accelerated camera.
It's not "Grand Prix"
But I think it's worth seeing, I liked the performances, and the story, although it's not 100%, is credible.
It's not "Grand Prix," not even Steve McQueen's 24 Hours of Lemans, but it's better than "Rush."

[john aston]

Ah, but the awards are given to film people by film people, so can have no significance to the rest of us. . .
 

Depends what you mean by a film person - I'd certainly count myself as one and , typically , go to the cinema 4 or 5 times a month in the winter months . I have seen most of the Oscar nominated films in the main categories and have no problem with their inclusion .  Of course the Academy gets it terribly wrong sometimes but this year, for example, it would have been a travesty if 1917 (all effects , zero characterisation) or Ford v Ferrari (good in parts - except all the fast n furious cliches )  had won more .' Best film ' or best anything else is a tough call , but one thing is clear is that it is more than bums on seats - or yet another tedious Superhero films would win every category , every year .

 

This year I enjoyed the multiple winner Parasite hugely, but three other films were marginally better in my view.  

Edited by john aston, 13 February 2020 - 07:45.

[john winfield]

He played to type too much for the critics approval.

 

Top motorcycle racer Jeremy McWilliams learned from Graham Hill's experience in Michael Glazer's Under the Skin (2013). He tried not to overshadow the beautiful female lead (Scarlett Johansson), kept his helmet on for much of the time, and didn't say a word. He rode his bike very quickly around Scotland, played against type (spoiler - he was an alien fixer/team co-ordinator with a penchant for tidying up) and was generally brilliant. And still he didn't win an Oscar. There is no justice.

[Lee Nicolle]

Having finally watched this movies,, or about half of it last night on TV the very obvious to me was that Matt Damon is nothing like Shelby.

And the Lemans part at least where 'Miles' takes off at the start of the race with no seat belts,, as was common in period then later is wearing blue 3" belts. Which came into use about 20 year later. IF drivers wore belts in road racing it would have been  black 2" 3 point harness.

I was a bit surprised no full faces with Hans Devices!!